The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant does not have standing to challenge the title of the landlord or the subsequent transfer of ownership rights.

IA No.9579/2016 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) No.1058/2016, IAs No.9578/2016 (u/O 39 R-1&2 CPC) & 9580/2016 (u/S 80 (2) CPC).

3. This suit claiming the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction has come up today for admission. However, having gone through the plaint and having not found the plaintiff to be having any cause of action for the reliefs claimed, the counsel for the plaintiff has been given an opportunity to address thereon.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff:

(i) that the defendant No.1 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) granted a Perpetual Lease dated 11th July,1974 of industrial plot bearing No.71/5 admeasuring 7246.67 sq. yards, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, Najafgarh, New Delhi to M/s Delhi Flooring Pvt. Ltd. (DFPL) (not a party to the suit) for a period of 25 years from 11th July, 1974;

(ii) that the said DFPL inducted the plaintiff as a tenant in a portion admeasuring 2400 sq. feet of the aforesaid property;

(iii) that the period of 25 years, for which the defendant No.1 DDA had granted the perpetual lease in favour of DFPL, lapsed in the year 1999;

(iv) that as per clause (III) of the Perpetual Lease Deed, upon non-renewal of the Perpetual Lease Deed, it was to come under the purview of “void”;

(v) that DFPL also did not pay damage charges as demanded by the defendant No.1 DDA from it;

(vi) that though DFPL had originally let out an area of 2400 sq. feet only to the plaintiff but subsequently in the year 1981, let out additional area of 2858 sq. feet to the plaintiff and the rent payable by the plaintiff to DFPL increased from Rs.800 per month to Rs.2,500/- per month;

(vii) that again in the year 1982 DFPL let out another 500 sq. feet of area of the property aforesaid to the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-;

(viii) that the plaintiff is presently in occupation of 5258 sq. feet area of the property;

(ix) that the land underneath the property is nazul land;

(x) that in the month of January, 1999, the plaintiff received notice from Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) of attachment of rent which the plaintiff was paying to DFPL, as DFPL had failed to pay property tax to MCD;

(xi) that the plaintiff accordingly started depositing the rent of the portion aforesaid of the property in its occupation with MCD;

(xii) that though DFPL was left with no rights in the property owing to perpetual lease in its favour having not been renewed and owing to non-payment of damages demanded by the defendant No.1 DDA but attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the property compelling the plaintiff to institute CS(OS) No.86/2002 and vide decree dated 17th January, 2012 wherein, DFPL was restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the property;

(xiv) that though DFPL was left with no rights in the property aforesaid but vide Sale Agreement dated 29th December, 2009 sold the property to the defendant No.2 Saurabh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (SBPL);

(xv) that thus the defendant No.2 SBPL has not acquired any rights in the property;

(xvi) that the liabilities of the property having been discharged by the plaintiff since the year 1999 and the plaintiff being a legal occupant of the property, the plaintiff has a right to get the perpetual lease with respect to the property transferred from the name of DFPL to his own name;

(xvii) that the defendant No.2 SBPL has served a legal notice dated 6th September, 2014 on the plaintiff claiming to be the owner of the property and has filed CS(COMM) No.333/2016 against the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the portion of the property in occupation of the plaintiff;

(xviii) that it is necessary for the plaintiff to bring the transaction between DFPL (described in the plaint as “ex-lessee”) and the defendant No.2 SBPL under the concept of void ab initio.

5. The plaintiff, in the suit has claimed the reliefs of:

(A) declaration that the ownership claimed by the defendant No.2 SBPL